FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Floyd - Gig Harbor

n/a

Alex Kim - BC ACADEMY

Debate Philosophy Approach to Debate: Holistically speaking, I believe the purpose for debate is to ultimately reach a conclusion. Whether resolutions pertain to future actions, present actions, or past actions, I believe debates are to discuss the merits of such actions. Accordingly, I believe the role of debaters are to act as tools to aid the judge or judges into reaching a logical conclusion about the resolution. The best approach to assist the judge/judges is to be clear, concise,  and deliberate. Framework/Structure:  The purpose of frameworks is to clearly structure the case of both sides. Therefore, frameworks and case structures should be very clear and even blunt. By the end of presenting the framework judges should be able to understand exactly how your side of the debate plans to argue. Arguments and Evidence: In general I have 2 criteria for a successful argument. 1. The actual purpose of the argument and 2. The logical analysis proving the argument. First and foremost, I weigh the impacts and significance of arguments. Arguments should be focused into proving a single burden on your side of the case and should always be relevant to the spirit of the debate (what the debate is actually about). Secondly, I value the actual logical analysis of the argument. Arguments should have clear concise logical explanations even if there is evidence supporting the argument. In general, I value the strength of an argument based on the merit of the argument and analysis of the argument. Evidence used to support an argument is extremely good, however evidence alone is not an argument. Pieces of evidence must not simply be regurgitated, instead must be analyzed and incorporated in the logical mechanism of your argument. Style/Rhetoric: In so far as you are clear, concise, and deliberate you are fine. Evaluation: In general I evaluate debates on a few key points that have the most significance in the round and resolution. I examine the answers as well as the responses of both sides for these points and weigh their arguments. Essentially, whichever side is able to provide a more realistic or desirable (through analysis and evidence) outcome from the resolution wins the debate in my opinion. At the end of each round I am more than happy to give both individual and team feedback. However, I prefer not to disclose results unless directed.

Ali Raphael - Mt Si

n/a

Alicia Jekel - PCCS

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andrew Stalsbraten - Anacortes HS

n/a

Angela Thompson - Mt Si

n/a

Anna Kitchener - SWHS

n/a

Anna Pisac - Snohomish

n/a

Annie Capestany - Walla Walla

I am an assistant coach and this is my 5th year judging. I don't like theory, speed or jargon. But I do like logic and reasonable arguments. Remember, it is your job to persuade me. If you go so fast that I can't understand your arguments, you lose. (I will put down my pen and cross my arms if you go too fast. You should slow down if you want to win.) Please roadmap and follow the flow.  I won't start the timer until after your roadmap (if any). You can use your own timers too. I give hand signals. I don't disclose.

Ariel Freda - Kamiak

n/a

Aujalee Fisher - Sprague

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Bill Messing - Bridge

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brad Thew - Central Valley Hig

I’ve coached LD for about eight years, most significantly at Central Valley High School in Washington, and I coached the 2010 Washington State 4A LD champ. Although I don’t like the implications that often come with the phrase “traditional judge,” that is probably the best way to describe myself judging. I try to check my opinions at the door and keep it tab. However, I only understand what I’m capable of understanding, and I’m not always up to date on the most recent trends in LD. I rely on my flow, and if it isn’t on there, it isn’t evaluated. Make clear extensions as a result. I really like real world debates with logical argumentation. Framework- I work best in rounds that operate with a traditional framework. Generally this means a V/VC, but I can deal with an advantage/standard as long as you link into it. I don’t think that plans are necessary, and I don’t know that I like them because honestly I don’t hear them often enough in an LD context to really have an opinion yet. Honestly, I have reservations about plans because I think the structure of an LD resolution does not necessitate a plan, but I believe that they have the potential to operate effectively. At the point an affirmative has ran a plan, it is acceptable for the NC to present a CP. Presentation/Speaker Points- I can handle moderate speed. I will say slow/clear if necessary. I’m not used to people particularly caring about the speaker points I award, but I generally stay in the range of 27. I like hearing what a card says, and I don’t like having to card call after a round. Be explicit in your signposting. Tags need to be super clear. Don’t be rude or deceptive. Try to be helpful and cordial in round. Humor is a plus, as rounds can get stale as tournaments drag on, but don’t take it too far. If/when I disclose, don’t bicker with me. Doing these things equals good speaker points, and I’ll try to compare you to what I’ve seen recently. Theory- I’m not the biggest fan of theory debate, but I understand the growing necessity of it. Do not run theory just because you feel like it, do it because there is a genuine need to correct a wrong. You need to be super clear in the structure of the argument, and it needs to be shelled properly. I need to know what sort of violation has occurred, and I need to understand its implication. Don’t use it as a time suck. Philosophically, I’m ok with RVI’s. I default to drop the argument, not the debater, and I default to reasonability over competing interps. I don’t want theory to be a strategy to win. Kritiks- I’m not a fan of critical positions. I know a bit about philosophy, but not everything. You don’t know me though, and you don’t know how much I know, and I can’t guarantee that you can tell me everything I need to know about Derrida or Foucault in 6-7 minutes in order to evaluate an argument properly. I feel that the greatest flaw of the k is that it requires so much preexisting knowledge on the part of me the judge, your competition, and yourself to be of any substantive value in the round. Most debaters really aren’t up to the task, and even if they are, the time constraints inherent in an LD round make it tough to evaluate properly. I like the idea of a k, but in reality, it just doesn’t work. Miscellaneous- 1- Flex: You need to use CX for questions. Do what you want with your prep. Don’t abuse flex. This will effect speaks. 2- I don’t care if you sit or stand. You’ll speak better if you stand though. 3- If you are paperless, I will time flashing. I don’t want to wait around forever. 4- You should be pre-flowed before the round. 5- Don’t be smug. 6- I constantly flow. I generally flow by hand. If I stop flowing, it means I’m lost and trying to figure out where you are, or that you’re going too fast, or that you’re just rehashing old material. In any case, it’s probably not a good thing. 7- If I didn’t mention a type of argument, I probably have no idea what it means. Don’t run it. Or ask me first. I’m not stupid, I promise. I just coach in a place where I don’t have to think very hard.

Brandi Mason - SWHS

n/a

Brent Lane - Westview

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Capri Holden - Central Valley Hig

I have been judging debate for over 10 years. I believe in a traditional values debate. Above all else the value should be held paramount. . . AND. . . Contentions that clearly connect back to the value criterion are essential in proving the resolution to be true/false.

Carly Woo - Holy Names

n/a

Carmen Gale - Kingston

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

Most notes here are for my preferences in relation to LD: As a coach and teacher I believe that debate is an educational activity that supports citizenship in a participatory democracy. As such, debate ought to prioritize communication in an accessible format for all involved. Because the forensics community ought to strive to broaden our reach and bridge the gap between academic focus and the needs of the broader community, we need to maintain events that are accessible to all kinds of people. That said, I will judge competitors both on their ability to critically analyze their topics and on their ability to communicate their analysis to their audience. I love philosophy and I see LD as one of the few activities that prizes and articulates the value of philosophy in relation to politics, it is depressing to watch the LD world shrink as it moves further from accessibility to new students and to the larger community. As a judge, I value accessibility of the event to a wide audience as a means to maintain the vitality of the activity. Thus, when I ask you to avoid spreading, it isn't because I can't keep up, it is because I want the debate to be presented in a way that will make new students and families want to support the event. In the current CX style, I see the LD world fading. Please don't contribute to that pattern. I am a former LD debater, and I enjoy philosophy, so if you are cabable of running a strong resolutional analysis using philosophical underpinnings, I'll probably enjoy the round. I don't mind the use of Kritics (in fact I really like them when they are done well), but I'm not a fan of theory focused on burdens and abuse issues like RVI's. Please don't spend your precious time arguing the finer points of burden while neglecting the more significant aspects of clash in your rounds. I also find topicality arguments generally tiresome as they tend to be too focused on technicalities and less focused on the central clash. I already dealt with spread/speed by telling you that I value communication, but in case you missed it, here it is again. Don't try to spread your arguments if you are sacrificing your ability to communicate clearly with your audience. There are not many students that can both communicate clearly and spread, so you are running a risk if you spread in rounds with me as the judge. I can keep up, but often don't see the benefit of doing so... I wrote a longer philosphy on the Wiki page for judges. Feel free to ask me about your arguments at tournaments, I'll be happy to discuss the round and current resolutions if I have time. All of the information noted above is aimed toward my role as an LD judge. I am likely to be judging Public Forum or Congress due to the competitor list for our team. In Public Forum, I generally try to keep a clean slate. Look fors: good analysis, strong evidence, cost/benefit analysis, generally well formatted presentation, clear signposting, strong voters, crystalization and impacts at the end of the speech. An especially strong team will provide regional analysis and impacts for their issues that explain international connections when appropriate. I don't mind some bleed from other forms of debate as long as it isn't overly fast or jargon-filled. If you use a lot of acronyms, be careful to explain them. I change the kinds of debate I judge on a regular basis, so I'm not always as familiar with the current resolutional lingo as you are. Blipping a turn this or drop that without explaining why is generally a bad idea, so remember to explain why you think I should turn an argument, cross apply or drop it. Thanks.

Charlotte Take - AVI

n/a

Chelsea King - Mt Si

n/a

Chester Hoberg - Ike

n/a

Chris Jackson - Central Valley Hig

Chris Coovert - Gig Harbor

Chris Coovert, Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA Coached LD: 17 years Coached CX: 12 years Competed in LD: 4 years Competed in NPDA: 2 years LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know<a href="http://wiki.cgm.ucdavis.edu/groups/mah01/wiki/5dbc6/All_about_lego.html">.</a> I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another framework being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing. As far as specific arguments go. 1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments. 2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. 3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate. 4. You need to keep site of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework. Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. CX Paradigm I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic. In general: 1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise. 2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt. 3. If you make post-modern K arguments at mock speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you. 4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations. 5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice. 6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents. I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

Chris Barnes - Capital HS

n/a

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

I am the coach for Southridge High School in eastern Washington.  I competed in high school debate in the 90s.  I've been coaching for 18 years.  Each topic has lots of ground, find it and bring the arguments into the round.  Be polite and kind.  Rude debaters almost never win.  I can flow relatively quickly but will punish debaters’ speaks if they are unclear or unprepared.  I try to vote on the flow, although I don't like Topicality run without forethought.  I am not a fan of the kritik but I will vote for one.  I don't mind theory arguments, I just need to be clearly told how the impact relates to what is happening in the round.   I vote on issues where I can clearly see the impact in the round.  I like clear, fast, well organized debates with lots of good arguments and lots of impacts.  When I sit on out round panels, my decisions are very similar to those of current college debaters, not communication judges.   Arguments about sources are tiresome and I am more persuaded by rationale or meta-analysis.

Claire Carlson - Mt Si

n/a

Colton Smith - ECHS

I graduated in 2013 after debating for Wenatchee High School in WA. I primarily debated on the national circuit and qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year. Novice, JV, and Traditional/Local Varsity Paradigm: Do whatever you're best at or want to do and enjoy them novice times. Varsity Paradigm: I default to competing interps. Fairness is a voter, education may or may not be. Things I will not vote for under any circumstance: •Skepticism (Using skepticism to justify a framework is fine) •Framework triggers •A prioris or NIBs that are unrelated to the standard •Permissibility •Unwarranted arguments Things I enjoy: •Arguments •Util •Plans, CPs, and DAs •Perms •Impact turns •Impact defense (I believe in terminal defense and give more strength to defense than most judges) •Weighing (Debaters do not do enough of this but it will take you a long way in front of me) •Extinction first arguments •Textual advocacies •Theoretical reasons to prefer util •CX checks I base speaks purely off technical proficiency. If you are aff, make your 1AR good and you will get good speaks. If an argument is conceded you do not need to extend the warrant, just the claim. Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Daniel Brokaw - Peninsula

David Jung - BC ACADEMY

n/a

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

Dawna Lewis - Kamiak

n/a

Derek Hanson - Kamiak

n/a

Dewan Zeng - Palo Alto

n/a

Donna Bowler - Trojans

n/a

Duncan Deutsch - Mt Si

n/a

Elisa Matthews - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Elizabeth Young - Garfield

Eric Sungho Cho - BC ACADEMY

Generally, I believe that debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity (because the style was created to be more relatable to the normal citizen) and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Impacts play a huge role for me when I vote.   Please do not spread, because PF isn’t policy, or else debaters will lose speaker points. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points.   Frameworks are not too important for novice PF debaters (for me), because I believe debaters should start with simply content-based arguments in the earlier parts of their debate career. However, for junior/open PF debaters, I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework.   In terms of evidence, I won’t be impressed if debaters simply reiterate quotations or empirical data. I’m more concerned of if the debaters actually understand “how”, for example, GDP will increase, rather than simply stating that GDP will increase because so-and-so said so. This makes for much more interesting, and higher-quality debate, rather than comparing evidence. I’m not really a fan of PF debaters discrediting an entire argument by attacking the source of evidence; even if debaters are attacking sources, they should still give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and deconstruct the flaws of the opponent’s arguments (but debaters can of course point out unreliable sources).   In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution.   I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback for all debaters.

Erin Gibson - Anacortes HS

n/a

Erin Stewart - Garfield

Esther Jang - UHS

n/a

Garrett Shiroma - AVI

n/a

Gina Su - PCCS

n/a

Gwen McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Hanna Diriye - AVI

n/a

Heather Helman - GPHS

n/a

J. Kraus - CKHS

Jabari Barton - Tahoma High

Hallo, I did LD for the last 4 years so I am capable of understanding progressive arguments. What I really want you to do is to explain things very, very well to me because even if you completely win the argument and I don't understand it, then I can't evaluate it. So that burden is on you. My face often tells you what I think about the argument (nodding, smiling, quesetioning look etc.) so it is beneficial to look at me every now and again. If you win the framework (especially the standard) then you have a significantly higher chance of winning the round. Make clear extensions and please for the love of god impact back to whatever standard we are looking to in the round. As for speed, I can handle fairly fast speed but once it goes over the top then it will be significantly more difficult for me to get the arguments down. So it's probably beneficial for you to not go top speed in front of me. Lastly, have fun and stuff ^_^

Jackie Reed - Sehome

n/a

Jaime Holguin - Gig Harbor

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000183 EndHTML:0000005304 StartFragment:0000002721 EndFragment:0000005268 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/coov/Downloads/Jaime%20judge%20paradigm.doc Two years of high school policy debate, will be my fourth year of judging. Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and Analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.   Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does need to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round.   Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me the judge to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW.   Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don't just tell me to reject the 1AC and that it somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get strong analysis of the warranted evidence of the neg to vote for a reject alt.   Counterplan: If you show how the CP is a better policy than the Aff, I will vote for it.   Theory: No matter what the theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the argument not the team.   For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don't make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before the round.

James Cleary - Trojans

n/a

James Stevenson2 - Puget Sound

The rap sheet  -          My favorite parli judge is Tom Schally.  My goal in parli is to judge like Tom, but in half the time. -          Debate well.  Impact comparison, clash, etc. Read Schally’s novel/”philosophy” if you don’t know how to do that already. I don't care what kinds of arguments as long as they're tailored well for the topic and the opposing arguments.  I love it all. -          Tech over truth in general, but truth matters. True impact defense especially. -          Offense/defense mostly, but not absolutely. I’m totally a hack for defense sometimes. -          Specificity matters.  This is true in strategic terms (greater specificity inversely correlates with the responsiveness of your opponents’ args) but it’s also basically my guiding principle for resolving points of clash.  The argument that is more assumptive of the other argument tends to win.  -          Work and scholarly/academic merit matter.   -         "Net benefits" is not a framework interp. "Perm: do both" is a legit perm. "The USFG will do something" is not a correctly written plan text; "The USFG should do something" is.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdPgJ0ZN8eU

Jamis Barcott - Puget Sound

Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague

Jane McCoy - ECHS

Janelle Williams - Chehalis

n/a

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jason Young - Garfield

Experience/Background: I debated policy for 4 years in high school (Centerville High School, OH), I did not debate in college. I started a policy team at Garfield High School, WA in 2014, and have been coaching them since then. As a debater I pursued a mix of policy and critical arguments, so I'm familiar and comfortable with a wide range of arguments. I am currently in a PhD program that is very much oriented toward critical theory, so my knowledge base for kritiks is reasonably extensive. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male that was educated and socialized within a Western context, which has likely produced certain subtle biases in terms of my epistemological view of the world. Judging Framework: I believe that a debate should be about the debaters, not about me. I will therefore do my best to decide the round based on arguments made by the debaters, rather than based on my own beliefs. Be clear about how you think I should be judging, and there shouldn't be any big surprises. Biases: Unless I am convinced to do something different, I will generally do/believe the following: -I will flow the round, and will give weight to arguments that are not answered by the opposing team. -I will protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR. This means that if I cannot connect an argument in the 2AR back to the 1AR, then I will likely give that argument less, or no, weight. -In general, I do not believe that completely new arguments should be made in the rebuttals. I also think that it is difficult for the negative to introduce completely new off-case positions in the 2NC and then develop them completely. This isn't to say that the 2NC shouldn't be allowed to introduce new off-case positions... I just think that the negative has to do a lot of work to convincingly develop such arguments to the point where I will vote for them. -I will vote for one team or the other. -I am pretty skeptical of the open source movement that seems to have devoured the activity. While I see some benefits to open source wikis, etc., I am not certain that coaches and competitors have fully considered some of the ways in which open knowledge supports certain facets of neoliberal logic, and ultimately widens inequalities (despite rhetoric to the contrary). As the coach of a new team, I find it ironic that I most often and most loudly hear open source ethics being pushed by individuals from large, well-established, and well-resourced teams. While I suppose it is nice for our team to know what arguments other teams are running, we literally do not have the research power to prep for them or the network to get necessary evidence from others... particularly when compared with the large schools. All of this is to say that I don't find 'non-disclosure' or 'you should lose because you don't participate in the wiki' theory arguments to be particularly persuasive. Speaking: Be clear! One pet peeve, especially at local tournaments in Washington: I really dislike it when debaters are only clear on tags. I'm listening to all of your evidence, not just the tag... so make sure I can hear everything! If I can't hear the evidence, then your tag was just an analytical assertion. Finally, please feel free to ask me questions before the round! I'm happy to answer specific questions about my paradigm.

Jean Tobin - Walla Walla

This is my 7th year coaching LD debate. I am familiar with the topics when I judge but not always prepared for unusual arguments, so be sure to clearly explain link/impacts if the argument is outside the norm. I'm comfortable with speed. I will say "speed" if you are speaking too fast for me to flow or understand. I am relatively new to theory arguments, so you should probably slow down on them and make sure they are not too blippy. I'm like logic and consider debate to be a game so theory (especially T) is interesting to me but I don’t like to punish people for their arguments. I prefer it if theory impacts make sense and are logical in the round - such as drop the argument, as opposed to drop the debater. However, that is only my default position. If you argue drop the debater well in the round, I will vote on it. I don't like sexist or racist arguments and I won't vote for them if they are obviously offensive, even if they are dropped.  I try not to make arguments for debaters. Your arguments should be well supported and explained. It is your job to explain the argument in a way that is straight forward and clear. In particular, I do not like extremely odd value/criteria debates where the evidence seems designed to confuse, not explain. And if you are not able to clearly explain your value/criteria/k in c-x, I will not vote for it. I value debaters understanding each other's arguments and responding to them effectively - I see a lot of discussion about disclosure as it applies to evidence but not much about honest disclosure in c-x.  I do convey my opinion on arguments through facial expressions - so if I think you are spending too much time on an argument I will show that visually and if I like an argument I will show that visually. I will vote on value and criteria arguments, but I love case arguments that have clear impacts that relate back to value and criteria. I like impacts to be identified and weighed in final arguments. I'm much more a policy judge than a traditional LD judge.  I do view debate as a game, I'm open to most arguments, I think debate is fluid and debaters are allowed to define and create the game as they go so long as their support for doing so is strong and valid. However, I don't like rudeness. Overwhelmingly for me that is defined as a debater responding to another debater (or more rarely, me) in a condescending manner. But rudeness only affects your speaker points. I like clear, consice, fast, organized debating. I think I generally give higher speaker points (I feel bad when I go below a 27 and will usually give a 30 at least once a tournament). I don't need tons of persuasion vocally - it isn't a performance, but I love and reward clear, intellectual persuasion with high speaker points.

Jed Bush - Federal Way

n/a

Jeffrey Richards - ECHS

Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID, Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA, and currently with Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the NFL Nationals tournament and my students placed 2nd, Semifinalist, and Quarterfinalist at the Washington State Debate championships in 2012, 2013, and 2014. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments. Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced. My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision. Let’s use Reverse Voters as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory argument from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one. Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech. Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold. I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues. Additional Items to Consider: 1. Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow. 2. Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how. 3. Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.

Jenn Dempsey - Central Valley Hig

~~Background: I competed in debate all four years of high school - primarily in LD, but also competed in Public Forum and Congress. Since graduating I have judged primarily in Eastern Washington.   To me, the most educational aspects of debate include exposure to multiple subject areas and the ability to clearly articulate well-reasoned arguments. I like v/vc debate and want your case to clearly link to those. Real world evidence and practical application goes a long way for me, but I also appreciate the philosophical side of LD. Although I can handle speed, I expect that you can utilize tone, speed, and inflection to provide clarity. I care far more about quality of evidence and reasoning than sheer volume of cards. Also, please give impacts rather than merely pointing out drops and give me clear and compelling voters.   A certain level of civility and professionalism are preferred. If you are especially hostile in round I will drop your speaks.

Jenny Gao - AVI

n/a

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Joan Miller - Centennial

Jodi Fitzgerald - Wenatchee

n/a

John Maltman - Bridge

I am a 2nd year Parent Judge – I am very traditional, in that I look for a good contention based battle. My  pet peeves are, 1) I hate to give time signals – if I do I’m paying more attention to the clock than to your case – I should be listening and flowing, not counting down with hand signals. 2) Stupid use of speed – I can handle a little bit of speed if you are clear, but please slow down for your tags… I will  give you a “clear” chance – but I really favor a reasonable paced smooth logical presentation -If I can’t understand it I can’t flow it, and I can’t judge it .  and 3) Process, check to make sure your judge and opponent are ready before each speech ….…. I’m not really big on theory and will rarely vote on it. Your job is to make it easy for me to vote for you. This means being organized with your thoughts and presentation – don’t make me jump all over my flow.  Give me good roadmaps and signposts, make sure you extend dropped points, give me clear voters at the end.

John Doty - AVI

n/a

John Julian - Bear Creek

n/a

Jon Guttormsen - Curtis

n/a

Jordan Hudgens - Bridge

tl;dr: Make extensions when appropriate, clearly weigh arguments (direct comparisons and take-outs are lovely), and illustrate how you win the standard debate and what that means for your arguments. The 1AC and 1NC are certainly crucial, but they are (in my mind) stepping stones to the more nuanced and particular aspects of the debate. It all comes down to the 1AR/1NR/2AR, explication of warrants/impacts, link analysis, etc. Very basically I want to see how you're winning the debate, why that's true (warrant), and what that means for the round/value debate (impact). I'm a very flow oriented judge, and I flow on my computer. As such, it is difficult to lose me on the flow...with some exceptions. The best debaters know how to help the judge navigate the flow, and understand that proper labeling and communicating with the judge are essential towards that end. Crystallization helps, but you shouldn't resort to rehashing your argument at the end of a speech simply to fill up time. The state of value debate in Lincoln-Douglas is, in a word, defunct. 90% of the values at present are morality (or a permutation, such as moral permissibility), and the debates are taking place largely about what type of morality we're using and the advantages/disadvantages of each. You are certainly welcome to use another value; however, if you are going to offer justice, orsocial welfare, or something of that nature, it should be clearly demarcated from morality (uniquely good or valuable). Arguments for why 'your value should be preferred' should be considerably more substantial than, say, 'life is a prerequisite for morality!' if you wish them to be taken seriously in the round. Link into your standard, or give me clear weighing and re-emphasis of your standard in your final speech! You don't need to constantly reference it, but it should be brought up at some point. Theory and weird args are fine; in fact, I enjoy interesting philosophical viewpoints a great deal, provided they are warranted and clearly argued. I think that processual debates can be very intriguing, and consider theory to be either a check on abuse or kritik of the current debate round (perhaps the other person being deliberately obfuscating, etc). I consider RVIs a de-facto option for the affirmative, though the negative can certainly present arguments for why the affirmative doesn't get an RVI. The threshold for winning an RVI, though, is extremely high. I'm not certain that going all-in on an RVI in front of me is an effective strategy, and I find that debaters are better served by utilizing imeets or counter interps to handle theory. I've found that a lot of the theory debates can become very unclear for a judge to evaluate on solely, so if you don't think you can convincingly win on theory, I recommend not trying for the (2AR) RVI. Getting a 30: speak clearly (not necessarily slowly, but I expect above-average intelligibility), don't make drops (or be incredibly efficient with cross applications), use all your speech time, and, most crucially, THOROUGHLY DOMINATE YOUR OPPONENT.I don't care that much about your body language (eye contact, inflection, etc. are good to have but I'm not going to punish you beyond speaker points on what may be simply bad habits), but I do care that you speak intelligibly, whether it's ludicrously fast or unbelievably slow. Being courteous is very important.

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

Josh Plumridge - Holy Names

Topicality You can of course win a t arg without collapsing down to only t in the 2nr, but it would greatly help if you didn't go for four things in the last speech. I kind of love T when it's run with care, with love - when it's not just an excuse to spread the 2ac, when the standards/impacts debate is fleshed out, when it's made clear why the aff interpretation of the res sets a bad precedent for debate.  Kritiks  It seems the most common ks this year are critiques of colonialism/empire and ks whose intellectual roots are found in psychoanalysis or something a little more obscure. Please don't run the latter unless you know what you're talking about. It cheapens the activity and the subject matter.  Counter plans  I like them a lot. Especially clever PICs. I really hope the cp debate doesn't devolve into walls of blippy theory. I actually like theory a lot, but only if it's advanced coherently, rather than in some silly glib manner.  Stylistic notes I like speed as long as you're clear. Duh. Please don't be cocky or disrespectful to the other team. It has never helped someone win. You will probably not win on "a dropped arg is a true arg" unless you heavily impact that drop.  I'm not going to say I'm a policy maker or tabula rasa. Both are literally false for almost every judge on the circuit. The more you create your own voting hierarchy and offer compelling impact analysis, the less likely it is that I'll have to intervene. Finally, I obviously prefer offense versus defense, but I also believe in curtailing the hegemony of risk analysis in debate. Sometimes the 2ac reads an impact takeout instead of a turn, and it's a 100% takeout.

Julia Zaglin - Vashon

n/a

Julie Korssjoen - Mt Si

n/a

Julie Carpenter - Sehome

n/a

Justin Choi - Federal Way

n/a

Kaelyn East - Gig Harbor

My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 5 years.    I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.   Other aspects to keep in mind:   I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.    I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.  Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.  I do have a basic understanding of some policy arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks. However, I do not find it to be the most persuasive way to win a round. I generally find most such arguments to be distracting from the focus and not well supported. They are not the most persuasive way to win a round in my opinion, but I will look at them if they are clearly explained and well supported.  Overall, I am looking for clarity,

Katherine Everett - Vashon

n/a

Kathryn Dupree - Mt Si

n/a

Katie Bergus - Gig Harbor

Years Coaching LD: 4 years WNDI lab leader Years Competing in LD: 3 Coach or Compete in LD in the Northwest? Yes Coach or Compete on the LD National Circuit? Yes Involved in Other Events? CEDA policy - 3 years, NPDA parli - 4 years   How I decide LD Debates: I look to the framework established for the debate and weigh impacts through the winning framework. If you want to debate the value and criterion, do it and make sure that you explain how your offense filters through this structure. If you want to read a plan or if you want to read a CP and some disads, do it and make sure you have tangible impacts in a net benefits framework. If you want to have a procedural debate, do it but don't think that you reading a theory argument means that you automatically win the debate--you still have to win your arg.    Unique Views on LD Arguments: Although I find the switch to more include more policy-style args in LD to be educational, due to the nature of LD resolutions, I think that adopting policy args isn't always incredibly intuitive. For you, this means that I will be incrementally more susceptible to arguments like "the 1ac doesn't pass a plan, so we don't cause the change that would be necessary to trigger the link the disad," etc. Rest assured: I'll still vote for you if you win your argument.   Presentational Preferences? Speed is not a problem for me.    Other Info: I think that you should debate the args that you are most comfortable with. I prefer progressive debate but I do not think that you should sacrifice your strengths to appeal to my interests. Feel free to ask specific questions before the debate.

Katie Cimino - OHS

n/a

Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

I prefer and default to a policymaker paradigm in CX policy debate.  In current jargon, I reside in the truth-over-tech world.  That said, I try to evaluate the round from (almost) any framework on which the debaters agree.  If they cannot or do not agree, I will do my best to adjudicate the framework issue, as well, based on the arguments presented in the round. Regardless, I believe AFF cases should have a plan, not just a generalized statement of intent.  I still consider inherency an issue that must be addressed by the AFF, and I think solvency should be demonstrated in the 1AC.  In my mind, the notion of presumption favoring the status quo (and, thus, the NEG) continues to exist.  That said, if AFF presents a prima facie case and NEG chooses not to contest it, presumption essentially shifts to AFF, and NEG better have some pretty persuasive off-case positions.  I am liberal on T (at least from an affirmative perspective).  But if NEG presents a strong T argument that AFF fails to rebut effectively, I will treat T as an a priori voting issue. In NEG terms, a well-constructed, logical, evidence-based DISAD remains the most persuasive argument against an AFF plan.  It need not result in nuclear war or the end of the world.  In fact, I find most DISADs more persuasive when not taken to the ultimate extreme.  Ks are fine arguments provided you really understand and explain them.  But you need to present them in terms I can understand; while I know my Marx, Engels, and Lenin quite well, I would never even pretend to comprehend French post-modernist philosophy (to use one example).  CPs should offer sufficient detail to be fully evaluated and include evidence-based solvency arguments. As for other forms of debate, I will gladly evaluate an LD round from either a value or policy perspective depending on the nature of the resolution and the results of any framework debate.  Plans, Ks, and CPs are fine in LD.  In Parli, I am also quite comfortable with plans, Ks, and CPs, but they are not necessary.  However, I will discount arguments in Parli that are based on a gross factual misstatement (even if the other team fails to challenge it).  In Public Forum, I am looking for solid evidence-based argumentation and real clash (too often the clash is missing in PF debate). In each of these forms of debate I am a flow judge.  But for me to flow your arguments effectively, I need good signposting and clearly stated tag lines.  Remember: I neither receive nor do I want a flashed version of your speech.  Your best arguments may prove meaningless if you fail to tell me where to record them on the flow.

Kelley Kirkpatrick - Mount Vernon

I was formerly a policy debater... but now find myself mostly coaching Lincoln Douglas debate!   I am open to any type of argument as long as it is clearly explained and well argued.   Speed isn't normally an issue... and I do verballly let debaters know when I am finding them unclear.

Ken Nichols - Newport

n/a

Ken Barnes - Sehome

n/a

Kristen East - Gig Harbor

Kyle Sessions - Central Valley Hig

~~I debated LD for 4 years at Central Valley High School in Spokane Valley, WA.  I competed in a more “traditional style” fairly successfully on the local scene and also played my hand in the “progressive style” around the country my senior year. I attended NSD in 2012 and competed at College Prep, St. Marks, UPS (4x), Whitman (4x), Berkeley, Alta and several other major tournaments.  As of now, I debate Worlds Parli at Carroll College in Montana. I don’t coach or judge high school on a regular basis-so I might need a few rounds to get back into the groove. Speed 7/10 (10 being quality TOC speed) If I need you to slow down or speak up I will yell clear or loud. Depending on how many times I have to say it, speaks will reflect. I flow on pen and paper and use multiple sheets for different positions and offs. I typically do not miss things, unless your not sign posting, in which case that’s on you. I am TAB and hate judge intervention, so I will vote wherever I am told to vote provided the best justifications in round. I do have some preferences and defaults: I tend to err AFF on presumption and I don’t like skep. AFF gets plans unless you win that they shouldn’t. At the end of the round I will weigh all substance through the criterion/standard, and in the manner that the debaters tell me I should. It is typical that debaters assume the nature of a priori arguments, and I don’t. I would prefer if you want to run Ks or T you let me know why they have to come first.  About theory. Make sure you tell me how the violation happened, and then why the voter is violated as well. Then why the voter(s) grants you the win, either for some in round or out of round reason. Meta-theory and the like is fine, but if you want to me evaluate the debate between multiple shells you should do the weighing for me.  I default reasonability (mostly because I was a lone wolf and didn’t have 1,300 shells prepared with sexy, bullet proof interps.) I give RVI to both sides unless one side says “only ___ gets RVI” and then has justifications. Theory is usually drop the debater unless you tell me it’s only drop the arg, because if it doesn’t lose one person the round, then why did you waste our time with it? Presentation and Speaker Points- 27 is average.  1) If you are rude or aggressive during CX, you will lose points. Similarly if  you use it for argumentative purposes you are awarded points.  2) Standing is probably going to result in a better speech, but I don’t require  it.  3) Power tags and blippy framework interps will lose you points, and  similarly for not slowing on tags and authors.  4) Flex prep is okay.  5) Don’t use overly aggressive or vulgar language.

Kyle Kendall - Peninsula

n/a

Lance McMillan - Peninsula

Lasica Crane - Kingston

I am the head coach at Kingston High School and have been involved with the program since 2007. In judging LD: I hate speed when it affects your ability to speak clearly. I want to hear what you are claiming and I like to be able to understand and assess what your arguments are. I love philosophy so I don't mind hearing interesting philosophical arguments. I don't hate theory, although I would rather hear you discuss the actual resolution unless there is a compelling reason to run a theory shell. I'm pretty flexible really. Speed is my main annoyance. I like some clash. I pay attention to how you speak. Avoid using filler words.

Laura Livingston - Sehome

n/a

Laura Wiseman - TBHS

n/a

Lauren Hillard - Gig Harbor

Lily Sadighmehr - Anacortes HS

n/a

Lisa Weber - Newport

Liz Letak - HarvardWestlake

A Little About Me   <ul> <li>Former LD debater (and FXer) for Benilde – St. Margaret’s in St. Louis Park, Minnesota (1999-2002). NFL, CFL, TOC, and Round Robin participant.</li> <li>Avid Mock Trial and Moot Court participant in college and law school.</li> <li>Currently, a practicing attorney in Salt Lake City and assistant debate coach at Alta High School.</li> </ul> Relax, Debate is Fun <ul> <li>When it comes to “logistics,” the floor is yours. Sit, stand, read from a computer, a tablet, move around - persuasion takes many forms.</li> <li>As a general rule, any request or suggestion you make will be granted so long as it is reasonable and does not prejudice your opponent. <ul> <li>Reasonable Requests: “flex prep time,” asking your opponent questions of clarification outside of CX, requesting to see a particular piece of evidence/Contention, looking over your opponent’s shoulder if he/she is reading a mile a minute, off time roadmaps.</li> <li>There is nothing wrong with a smile.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> Win on the Merits, Not at the Expense of Your Opponent <ul> <li>Stay Classy. I am a very open minded person, but not when it comes to bullying your opponent or making ad hominem attacks.</li> <li>Be the Ideal Opponent. I am completely in favor of “crazy” arguments and obscure philosophy. However, if you are unable to explain what you are arguing to your opponent in CX in simplistic terms that a reasonable opponent should understand, then you need to re-think if what you are arguing is a good idea. <ul> <li>Similarly, I consider a position “abusive” when your opponent has no feasible way to win the round based on the burden you are attempting to establish.</li> <li>On the other end of the spectrum, don’t call an argument or position “abusive” merely because it is foreign or inconvenient to address. I will never fault a debater for using CX to clarify and understand an opponent’s argument.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> Substantively, Anything Goes <ul> <li>I, as a judge, will entertain any argument(s) you want to make. Theory, Kritiks, Philosophy, Plans, CPs, and Anti-Values/Lack of Values are all permissible. High School debate is one of the unique times in your life that you can make “out of the ordinary” well-reasoned unconventional arguments. Take advantage of it. See also my point below about "Voir Dire."</li> </ul> Helpful Hints <ul> <li>Emphasize the points you want me to write on my flow. Tag lines. Names of authors for cards. Impacts. Things you are going to extend in rebuttal.</li> <li>Speed is ok, so long as it is clear. I reserve the right to say "clear" if you are going too fast. Also, please be mindful if your opponent can't handle speed. This doesn't mean you can't go fast, but if you are a varsity debater who is hitting a novice who is having his/her first circuit round, be nice. Flash your case.</li> <li>Excellent word economy and clarity really impress me.</li> <li>Overviews/Underviews - especially the "this is what is happening in this round from a 10k view" type are very much appreciated in intense line by line debates.</li> <li>Give Voters. State the Issue, summarize the arguments, and tell me why you win that issue.</li> <li>Weigh the Impacts. Tell me why your argument matters and why it outweighs your opponent's.</li> <li>For the rounds where there are multiple flows (i.e. a K, Theory, Plan), please tell me what I should evaluate first and why.</li> <li>I rarely call for cards (unless there is an evidentiary dispute) so please explain to me the warrant + implication and don't just say, "This card is amazing and takes out all of the Aff's offense." Fabulous, how does it do that?</li> <li>You can absolutely feel free to "Voir Dire" me before the round starts. By this I mean, if you are thinking about running a certain position and are hesitant, ask me about it. "Are you open to anthro K's?" And I will definitely respond, "S(h)ure!"* If you ask me about something with which I am not familiar, I'll tell you. This then gives you the opportunity to educate me about how something works which in turn makes me a better judge. Debaters are using a lot of acronyms / jargon for things that simply didn't exist in 2002. It doesn't mean I'm not open to it, but just need you to explain to me how it functionally works.</li> <li>Literary References, one-liners, analogies, Real World examples, pop culture jokes, anything animal related, sassy yet respectful quips, and "debate humor" are all welcomed and encouraged.</li> </ul> Decision Making <ul> <li>I will try my absolute best to be the judge I wanted to have for LD rounds in High School: the open-minded, relaxed, well-informed, non-interventionist. To the best of my human ability, I will not interject my personal opinions or knowledge into the round (although I reserve the right to “make a suggestion” to you after I fill out the ballot).</li> </ul> Don’t hesitate to ask me anything else or clarify anything I have written. Also, if you would like to hear the “Debate is the gift that keeps on giving far beyond what you can conceive of it in High School” speech, I’m happy to give you any variation of it! Email: <a href="mailto:Liz.Letak@gmail.com">Liz.Letak@gmail.com</a> *The spelling of this word was intentional.

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Lois Boylan - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Lynette Shiroma - AVI

n/a

Madeline Otto - Gig Harbor

Mary Larsen - Vashon

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Michael Curry - Sprague

For all forms of debate: BE NICE! Be nice to me. Be nice to your opponent. Be nice to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being. So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all! Public Forum I expect cases to reflect the speaking expectations of event. 4 minutes of information presented in 4 minutes of time. I see my role as evaluating what you feel is important and would be worth speaking about, listening, and learning about. That being said, I do need clear signposting. The cleaner my flow, the more legitimate decision I can make. I expect to see impacts accessed in the round. If I have my way, all I have to do is look at the flow and weigh Aff world versus Neg world. I would like to make my decision solely off of the arguments first. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision. Parliamentary Debate In a parli round I see my role as a non-intervening policy maker who is accustomed to, but doesn't necessarily require, stock issues as a part of the presentation. It's weird I know, but I don't think any one judge fits squarely into any one paradigm. More importantly, I would like to base my decision on the best arguments in the round. My need for some stock issues is more an acknowledgement that there should be some common expectation amongst the debaters about what to run. I do tend to policy make more often then stock issue, but I do presume Neg to an extent. Still, a bad Neg case will always lose to a better Aff, even if the Aff doesn't fulfill all its burdens. Unlike many of my Oregonian peers, I am very much in favor of teaching policy and theory arguments in parli debate. For me, especially considering that Neg's prep time is almost useless, providing the Neg with offensive opportunities is necessary. I do expect off case arguments to be run correctly. The #1 reason why I rarely vote (for example) on T is because elementary facets of the shell are missing, lack of impacts, or a general misunderstanding of what the argument even is. If you have me for a judge, don't run off case just for its own sake. I have a high threshold for pulling the trigger on a procedural, or a K. So be wise in these arguments' applications. My opinion on speed is the same for Parli as it is for Public Forum in one area. I expect both first constructives to be delivered at a reasonable speed. If I have a clean flow at the beginning, then I can place responses properly once the pace picks up. I still don't want spreading, but I get it that the Aff needs to move at a quick pace in order to cover the flow prior to and after the Neg block. I expect arguments that are complete. Good link stories. Weighable impacts. Voting issues in the rebuttals. No tag teaming when questions are presented. Also, THERE IS NO RULE IN OREGON ABOUT ONLY HAVING 3 QUESTIONS!!! If you say "I'll take the first of three questions," I will weigh that against you. Take the questions if the opponent has been asking good questions. I won't blame you if you don't because the questions haven't been probing. Ideally, I want to weigh the round on impacts. I like comparing Aff and Neg worlds. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision. LDV Debate In an LD round I see my role as a non-intervening judge who wants to leave the direction of the round open as much as possible to what the debaters bring to the table. LDV is wide open for me in many regards. In Oregon, I value the V/C debate and would love all communication at a reasonable speed. Yet, we travel to some circuit tournaments on the West Coast, so of course I enjoy seeing the diversity of policy and framework arguments. So here's what would make my decision more legitimate. In regards to the case, run what you believe is worth speaking about, listening about, and learning about. Chances are really good that you know some stuff I don't. You are really focusing on this topic, and I have to teach classes, grade assignments, and raise my two sons. So you have the information advantage. You are going to have to educate me and sell me on whatever you are running. One point that is very important: I'm a smart guy. I'll get it only if you are proficient at delivering it. If I "didn't understand" your position, it's probably because you failed to adequately explain it. I do need clear signposting. I do need the constructives to be at medium speed. I find most people who spread are bad at it for a number of reasons. But the impact is devastating: I will have a messy flow. If you can give me a clear beginning, then you can pick up the pace in the rebuttals, and I can flow it better. I like to compare Aff and Neg worlds. I like to do this weighing with impacts. I would like to be able to base my decision off of the flow. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Moin Shaikh - Newport

n/a

Molly Gallagher - Bear Creek

n/a

Monica Fink - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor

Natasha House - Capital HS

n/a

Nic Ragland - Kingston

Nikol Aquino - AVI

n/a

Noah Adam - Tahoma High

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Patrick Johnson - Westview

Real world arguments win- theoretical/improbable impacts do not Comparative impacts critical for a win Topicality is legit, again, only for real world probability CLASH! and signpost where your arguments clash with opponents AND why your impact is more significant No tagteam when prohibited Speed is not your friend when I'm judging, if you have firmly established your contentions and have time, then spreading ok w/o speed

Paul Sealey - Federal Way

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Rob Sorensen - Bear Creek

I’m a traditional judge – I consider the value/criteria debate to be most important.  Your contentions should flow naturally from your VC and should be clearly and intentionally related. I’m quite skeptical of theory and kritiks, so if you want to run these, you will need also to argue convincingly as to why I should vote on these sorts of things.  I expect debaters to actually engage the resolution, rather than trying to redefine or avoid the commonsense intention of the resolution.  Don’t try to spread.  I value clarity, fluency, and eloquence and have limited tolerance for speed.  I will not vote for a debater whose case I cannot easily follow and flow.<o:p></o:p>

Sampath Duddu - Capital HS

n/a

Sara Hopkins - Mt Si

n/a

Sarah Foster - Westview

This is your round. Do what you want to do in all debates. I will believe anything that you want me to but you have to make me believe it. Sign post well. I NEED to know where you are going so that I don't fall asleep.

Scott Saunders - Mt Si

n/a

Scott Hess - THS

I expect students to have a well-documented case.  Tell me your sources.  I want strong authority, recent data, and compelling reasoning.  Presenting your own case, however, is only part of the game.  Rebuttal of your opponents' case should show strong preparation and arguments supported by equally strong evidence.  Finally, good arguments don't occur without clear speaking skills.  All speeches must be understandable, flowable, and articulate with good road mapping and impacts.

Scott Snively - Kingston

Shaina Doyle - Anacortes HS

n/a

Shambricia Spencer - Capital HS

n/a

Shawn Marshall - Cedar Park

n/a

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Steve McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Steve Knell - HarvardWestlake

I coach at the Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles. Previously coached at Rowland Hall-St. Mark's and Bingham High School in Salt Lake City. Recently graduated with a MM from the University of Georgia. Debated LD in High School, and have coached LD every year since graduating. Have judged LD at national tournaments for the past seven years. I try to update this paradigm before each tournament. Updated 11/22/15 for Glenbrooks and Alta.   <hr /> THE SHORT/TL;DR: As a seasoned participant in this activity, I have opinions about the best and most effective way to debate, but it is generally not my job nor my right to exclude you from the ballot just because you don't mesh with those views. The exceptions can be found in the changes to my paradigm below (under "Things you should know"). You should be aware of my predispositions as a judge to maximize your chance of winning my ballot with excellent speaker points. This is not to say that strategies and positions I don't like won't win you a round, but more to say that if you use them, you may a) make me sad/angry, b) have to work harder, c) receive a candid lecture on why what you are doing is terrible, or some combination of the above. I am an educator first and an adjudicator second (or third... or fourth), so having a full understanding of and respecting my preferences will make the round a much more pleasant experience for all. Answers to common questions: <ul> <li>Yes, speed is fine. I will say "clear" twice. Please don't ignore me when I say "clear."</li> <li>Yes, theory is fine. I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I am not afraid to gut check on theory when it's a mess.</li> <li>Yes, atypical advocacies are fine.</li> <li>Yes, I will disclose a decision.</li> <li>No, I will not disclose speaks.</li> </ul> Things that will make me happy: <ul> <li>Solid, offense-oriented debate on substantive issues, killer framework debate, and stellar weighing.</li> <li>Giving me an "easy way out" - telling me exactly where you're winning and why that means the ballot goes to you. Don't make me read over my flows for fifteen minutes after a round.</li> <li>Savvy but non-sketchy strategy; i.e., knowing what to go for and what's most likely to win you the round, but not resorting to tricks or lame, canned theory shells to avoid debate.</li> <li>Killer RVIs on ridiculous/unnecessary theory.</li> <li>Being nice, classy, humble, and respectful.</li> <li>Being sassy without being an asshole.</li> </ul> Things that will make me cranky: <ul> <li>Unnecessary theory debates.</li> <li>Shitty/sketchy/weak/generic internal links to extinction impacts.</li> <li>Being a jerk.</li> <li>Being unnecessarily loud.</li> <li>Making me call for cards.</li> <li>Arguing with me after the round.</li> <li>Taking a long time to flash stuff to each other.</li> </ul> THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW! Here are the highlights of my recent paradigmatic "revelation":   <ul> <li>I no longer can justify being a judge that will not intervene against arguments that I think are problematic for the activity. I will make SURE you know exactly what these arguments are so there is no room for confusion. You should ask me before round if these are not clear. <ul> <li>I will never vote for arguments claiming that racism, sexism, or homo- trans- etc. -phobia are good things, and may lower your speaker points for either employing these arguments or using racist, sexist, or homophobic rhetoric in the round. You should also stop using rape metaphors or examples.</li> <li>You'll have a very hard time getting me to vote for a presumption or skep trigger.</li> <li>Please don't use a narrative of the suffering of another to access a debate ballot.</li> <li>I will intervene against (not vote for) brackets or evidence ethics theory where I find the violation to be minuscule. I think bracketing and evidence ethics theory is VERY important, but If I don't believe there was a) a reasonably malicious intent, or b) a significant enough changing of the meaning or intent of the evidence to merit a loss, I will not vote for it.</li> <li>You should use discretion when running theory arguments and honestly consider a world in which your interpretation is adopted universally. I have heard a slew of theory interps that I find not just to be absurd if adopted universally, but even pretty offensive based on the fact that they would functionally exclude smaller schools and underprivileged debaters. I reserve the right to intervene against interps that I find to be monstrously offensive in terms of their implications for the activity, and particularly the underprivileged in the activity.</li> <li>I find many theory debates simply almost irresolvable, even by the finest critics, so I am not afraid to gut check to find an easy way out. You can avoid this by making the theory debate very clear. <ul> <li>Disclosure (yes, even if it's a tournament rule)</li> <li>Must flash cases</li> <li>Anything that happened outside of this round (ie. my opponent cheated in a previous round, didn't flip 72 hours before, has a pet snake, is not me, etc.)</li> <li>Must have no more than one author (really?)</li> <li>Must run util</li> <li>Must read a plan/CP</li> <li>May not read a plan/CP <ul> <li>Generally bidirectional theory args I find problematic - if you have two different shells you could read no matter what the 1AC reads after you ask them what they defend (ie. on the PC topic - "Must defend brain death" and "Must defend cardiac death."). Doesn't mean I'll intervene, but you'll make me cranky.</li> </ul> </li> <li>CPs must be conditional</li> <li>CPs must have more than one solvency advocate</li> <li>Spikes must have a voter</li> <li>Must read a counter-interp</li> <li>Cannot read a K</li> <li>Must line-by-line answer things</li> <li>Affirmative framework choice and affirmative role of the ballot choice  </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li>I am getting old (debate old) and just cannot keep up as well as I used to be able to. Keep these things in mind: <ul> <li>Judges are not computers - we do not process information objectively the way you want us to. Judges who are fresh out of high school often contribute to the perception that we are perfectly able to get your arguments the way you want them to be framed all the time always by pretending they can actually get all this stuff. No judge is a perfect processor of information at high speeds, despite how much they pretend to be to seem "cool" and get preffed so they get good rounds. It's your job to make the voting story super clear.</li> <li>If I say clear, slow, loud, etc., something had better change.</li> <li>I will say clear twice in a speech, and then if nothing changes, I am not getting your arguments down and will probably not vote on them. I do my best but if you're not willing to help me out you run the risk of me missing things.</li> <li>If you are unwilling to slow down just a tiny bit and give me a millisecond of time to process your short analytic arguments, especially in theory debates, I'm going to miss some of what you are saying at your own peril.</li> <li>It is seriously your problem if you don't adjust when I say clear. If I don't vote your way after saying clear a bunch, and you ask me "how did you evaluate this blah blah blah" I will probably say "I didn't because I didn't hear/understand it."</li> <li>You should not assume I or any judge knows all the things about all the things. This is especially true of dense philosophical arguments, theory stuff, and Ks.</li> <li>It is seriously a very good thing to crystallize, but nobody does it anymore. Slow down on the most important arguments and lay them out in a neat little package for the judges at the end of your last speech.</li> <li>I recommend you check in with me a couple of times during a speech by making quick eye contact.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> THE LONG(er): I view LD as a truth-testing debate. (This does not mean that I think plans are bad - I think you can test the truth of the resolution with a specific advocacy.) The easiest way to win my ballot is to deploy a judging calculus (standards/framework) stemming from the evaluative mechanism of the resolution and weighing arguments through that calculus. That being said, I am certainly not married to truth testing as the sole calculus for evaluating the debate. I will accept alternative weighing calculi, you just need to tell me how those mechanisms function and how I evaluate arguments through them. Should links not exist to the evaluative mechanism of the resolution in your standards or I've not been told to do otherwise, I will default to a comparative worlds paradigm to make a decision. Weighing your arguments against your opponent's arguments in the round is essential: tell me how impacts compare, why I prefer your argument, card, etc. In terms of strategy, while the line-by-line debate is important, I think that many debaters tend to sacrifice the big picture debate for the sake of the spread or the line-by-line. Don't be afraid to crystallize and tell me specifically where and why you are winning the round, especially in your final seconds. Quality will almost always be a better strategy than quantity in the end; win the big picture - it is the easiest way to win ballots. I presume aff because of the uphill structural battle the aff faces with the 1AR specifically, but I am open to arguments for negative presumption. THEORY: I strongly prefer substance to theory. My complaint about theory arguments is that I think that theory can be used as an important pedagogical tool to check in-round abuse; however, I tend to think that in practice, it is almost always used as a sketchy way to unfairly make life harder for your opponent or avoid substance than an argument against actual abuse. As such, I tend to feel somewhat uncomfortable voting for theory arguments. The overuse of theory, in my opinion, is not good for the circuit because it numbs the community to actual abuse, and limits our ability to be educated on topic-specific, real-world issues. However, I have voted for theory and am certain that I will continue to vote for theory. If you win theory that I find to be objectionable, I'll vote on it. But I might complain (loudly) after the round. A footnote, I find myself drifting to intuitive theory arguments about abuse rather than formulaic ones - don't be afraid to condense the theory debate and make intuitive arguments rather than just reading and rehashing your canned theory standards. Here are a few good rules of thumb for theory when I'm in the back: <ul> <li>If you are clearly winning on substance and/or aren't losing ground, don't run theory.</li> <li>If you are just feeling too lazy to answer substance, don't run theory.</li> <li>If you are debating some poor novice or individual that clearly doesn't understand theory arguments and just want to be a theory bully, don't run theory.</li> <li>As an extension of my philosophy on "bad" theory, I very much dig savvy RVIs. "No RVIs" is an uphill battle in front of me.</li> <li>I will not vote for out-of-round theory, like disclosure theory or "he cheated/did something shitty in a previous round." My jurisdiction extends only to the round in question.</li> </ul> SPEED: Speed is fine, of course. I will say "clear" twice. There are several speed-based guidelines that will make me (and all your other judges) happy: <ul> <li>It's your job to make things clear for me if you'd like me to vote on them. I am not 19 and did not just compete at the TOC last May. I don't practice listening to speed 24/7. I can keep up with the 95% of speeds but you need to be very clear, and slow down and crystallize on the critical arguments, or you run the risk of me missing their importance and therefore not using them in my decision calculus. In your constructive, make sure your tags and card authors are absolutely clear, and in your rebuttals, make sure you very clearly telling me where to vote. If you tell me where to vote at the same speed as you read cards in the 1AC, you run the risk of me missing the issues you deem most important, which is not my problem, but yours. Don't take that chance. Slow down and tell me exactly where to vote.</li> <li>If it's 8:00 AM, don't read your dense metaethical framework at your top speed, especially if there is no cup of coffee in my vicinity.</li> <li>Please slow down a bit for sections with a series of short analytic statements, such as in your framework. This is especially true in rebuttals - slow down so I get all of your arguments. If the super important stuff where you want me to vote is read at the same speed as the card text you read in the 1N, we have a problem.</li> <li>Please do not speak with unnecessary volume.</li> <li>I think calling for cards after the round borders on intervention. I will do it if I absolutely need to, but it is your job to make things clear for me, and not my job to resolve your muddled debate by reading through the 1AC you already read.</li> </ul> Ks: Kritiks are fine. I have a decent understanding of much of the critical lit used in LD, especially the old school stuff like Foucault, and I enjoy unique perspectives on the resolution, but don't assume that I spend my spare time reading Nietzsche, Baudrillard, etc. and know everything you are saying backwards and forwards. Much of the critical literature is often difficult to grasp, so I prefer that you don't read at your top speed. If I don't understand it at the end of the round, it's not because I'm an idiot. It's because you did a poor job explaining it, were not clear enough, or just don't understand it yourself well enough to explain it. If reading pre-fiat/discursive K arguments, please warrant and explain the role of the ballot, the same way you would warrant a theory argument. Also, your K doesn't provide you with license to demean your opponent if they don't understand what you are talking about. PERFORMANCE, IDENTITY, AND SUCH: I'll listen to it and vote on it if you win but my threshold is much higher for arguments like this - you have to explain the voting story very well. As far as identity stuff, I do not think I can sign the ballot for someone just because they are a member of a disadvantaged group; you need to do more work on making the role of the ballot clear. I also have a high threshold for endorsing micropolitics with a "win;" that seems to cheapen the movement in question when employed in a competitive forum. If you ask me to endorse, and sign my ballot as an act of micropolitics or "message sending" as a judge, something that a) I don't believe personally or b) you have not convinced me of in the round, it's going to be very difficult to sign the ballot for you. When in doubt, it's better to stick to substantive topical debate. EXTENSIONS: My threshold for extensions is low, especially for arguments without any ink next to them. You don't need to follow the arcane formula of saying "extend X card who says Y," and certainly don't need to read your cards again. But, to build a cohesive voting story, you NEED to "extend" and re-explain specific offense from your previous speech(es) by discussing it and how it interacts with other arguments to win you the round. SPEAKS: The best speaks are reserved for the best debaters at a tournament. I start at 27.5 as an average and adjust accordingly. If I think you deserve to break even (3-3) at a tournament, you will probably get something in the neighborhood of 27.5 or 28, and I will adjust from there. My perception of "average" is subjective based on the tournament and departures from an average score are relative to the level of debate at the specific tournament and the size of the pool. I don't give scores above a 29.5 often. Don't let that intimidate you as much as give you the incentive to work very hard to get one! I will almost never go below a 24 unless you concede or are monstrously offensive. My method of determining speaks has to do both with overall skill and strategy and also with more nuanced factors unique to my preferences as a judge, but rest assured that I'm almost never going to speak-tank you. As a note about out-rounds, the fact that you are not being awarded speaks in out-rounds is not an excuse to ignore your judges' preferences or be a meanie. Remember that behavior in these rounds reflects on you as a debater and a person in future preliminary rounds and interactions with all involved in that particular debate. Additionally: I will wait to award speaker points until after the RFD. I am very tired of people downright arguing with me about my decision. Arguing with a judge is exceptionally disrespectful of that judge's experience, expertise, and perception of the round. I have no interest in bickering with a high school student about something they cannot change for 20 minutes, and your speaker points may reflect that should you choose to go that route. RESPECT AND DEMEANOR: The easiest way to piss me off is to be mean and the easiest way to impress me is to be classy and nice. Remember - you are a high school student; you aren't hot shit, you don't know everything, and there is always someone better than you. Every opponent, regardless of skill level, school, or status, deserves the same level of respect. Don't be afraid to be aggressive or sassy when debating, just don't be a jerk; stay classy and maintain some degree of humility. You should treat your judges with a similar attitude. I will always be respectful to you as a debater and will treat you in a friendly and professional manner, so I expect the same of you. Be aware that my biggest pet peeve is when debaters argue with me about my decision after the disclosure. I completely understand if you ask questions, are unclear about something, or want to understand why I voted the way I did. In fact, I welcome such questions. But if you go beyond that and draw out arguments with me about my decision, you are being disrespectful. I view speaker points as the only method for checking disrespect. If you are a jerk, you can expect your speaks to reflect that behavior. Feel free to ask me any questions you have.

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Sumukh Bharadwaj - Capital HS

n/a

Suzanne Hall - THS

I expect cases to be presented with thoughtful, thorough and critical use of evidence to support each contention. I hope for keen responses to the opposing side with clear collaboration and team support during cross fire sessions. Overall, I expect competitors to remember that this is a speaking event; strong oratorical skills, including pacing, volume, emphasis and phrasing impact my evaluation of their efforts.

Taylor Deardorf - Southridge WA

I debated for Southridge High School but most of my judging criteria come from my experience come form my colegiate Mock Trial competitions.  I am a college student at the University of Washington. Because of this experience in the trial court, PF teams would be more successful laying out cogent arguments in real world situations. Debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Real wolrd impacts play a huge role for me when I vote. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points. I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework. In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution. I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback.

Tim Ahern - OHS

n/a

Tom Wiley - Kingston

I majored in philosophy & math in college. I have 5 years experience judging LD/PuFo & Congress. When it comes to a judging paradigm, I follow my heart.

Vicki Orrico - Newport

n/a

Will Helman - Central Valley Hig

William Carroll - Mt Si

n/a

Zachary Borman - Rocky HS

n/a

garrett Deardorff - Southridge WA

jon landefeld - Southridge WA

I am a first year parent judge with experience in PF and LD.  My main judging preferences are for clear polite debates.  I value debaters who respond to eachother's arguments, clearly set up voter issues and stick to topically relevant issues.

2015 Puget Sound High School Invitational